# In the matter of Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority vs.  Monitoring Committee of Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Through Anuj Jain, Secretary & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-05-24. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00411. The case involves an appeal filed by Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 24 May 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00411
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/yamuna-expressway-industrial-development-authority-vs-monitoring-committee-of-ja-6cd586cb

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal filed by Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) against an order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, which approved the resolution plan submitted by Suraksha Realty Limited for Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL). YEIDA, an operational creditor, challenged the treatment of its claim in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of JIL. The dispute revolves around YEIDA's claim for additional compensation to farmers and External Development Charges (EDC), and whether YEIDA should be considered a secured creditor. The CIRP of JIL has undergone protracted litigation, with multiple rounds of appeals and challenges to resolution plans.

## Facts

Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) filed a claim as an operational creditor in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL). YEIDA's claim included amounts for pending works, External Development Charges (EDC), and compensation payable to farmers. The CIRP was initiated by IDBI Bank against JIL. The IRP admitted part of YEIDA's claim but rejected a significant portion, particularly the claim for additional farmer compensation, citing pending arbitration. YEIDA challenged the resolution plan approved by the NCLT, arguing it was not treated as a secured creditor and its claims were undervalued. The Allahabad High Court's decision regarding additional compensation to farmers was initially challenged but later

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether YEIDA is a Secured …

**Ratio:** The Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, empowers YEIDA to acquire land

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT relied on the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act,

…

**Interpretation:** Section 13A of the 1976 Act creates a charge over the property for any amount

…

**Application:** The NCLAT held that YEIDA is a secured creditor with respect to its claim of

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…
- **Appellants:** Yamuna Expressway…
- **Respondents:** Jaypee Infratech…; Monitoring…

## Timeline

- **1976-01-01 — Uttar Pradesh…**: The Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 was enacted to provide for the…
- **2003-02-07 — Concession Ag…**: Taj Expressway Industrial Development Authority entered into a Concession Agreement with…

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/yamuna-expressway-industrial-development-authority-vs-monitoring-committee-of-ja-6cd586cb